guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Krowman
__TOC__ N/Mo Bloodlust Please exercise more wisdom in dealing with new contributors. If you just browse through the "diffs" of the build you'll see a new user having great difficulty editing the page. He's obviously saving every edit he makes. His build was obviously not ready for voting. You and the others exercised Wiki-bullying. Please do not drive people away with such behavior. I know if this happened to me on my first post here, I would not have been around much longer. --Karlos 06:31, 4 February 2007 (CST) :I posted an apology to the build author on both his usertalk page and the buildtalk page involved, offering to help him with any editing difficulties he might have. Hope that's alright. - Krowman 14:22, 4 February 2007 (CST) Response to your question * Eurospike was a previously very popular Spike build run by many high ranked guilds...it usually consited of two W/A Shadow Axe esque characters and 2 Domination Mesmers similar to the Blinding Surge Domination Mesmers. * The tanks would melee until their adrenaline was charged, the caller would select a target and when the spike was called the warriors would use Shadow Prison and follow with their attack chain, while the mesmers would use the previously very powerful Spiritual Pain followed by a quick Wastrel's Demise. * The spike damage was very high...high powered axe attacks with the armor ignoring damage of the mesmers coupled with the IAS and Fast Casting made for a ferociously quick and devestating assault. * The monk backline was whatever the guild chose, usually an E/mo or Mo/E flag runner was included. * It was called Eurospike because of the very large amount of high ranked european guilds that ran it. Hope that answers your questions. =)--Llednar 01:06, 17 February 2007 (CST) Jesuis Krowman Tu parles Francais?? ^^ (T/ ) 01:22, 17 February 2007 (CST) :Un peu. Je peux faire le causerie. Je sais vous diriez "Je suis Krowman" ou "Je m'appelle Krowman," mais "Jesuis" est mon nom de Internet(? my handle?). Aussi, beaucoup de personnes pensent c'est "Jesus." >.< Yo hablo espanol (un poquito) tambien, si estas interesado. - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 01:37, 17 February 2007 (CST) ::Ah bon? C'est <>. ;) Moi, j'etudie Francais II a l'ecole. Mais, je ne parle pas tres souvent ni tres bien...Il n'y a personne qui parle Francais dans mon quartier. Alors, je pratique exclusivement en classe. >< Je ne parle pas l'Espagnol, parce que je pense c'est difficile en comparatif de Francais. Mais, je sais que tu dit, generalement...^^ ::Tu sais, le Wikicode "Sup" n'est pas permittez pour le sig, parce que le linebreaks ne marche pas correctement? Regardez bien GW:SIGN, s'il vouz plait...Je pense, c'est un problem minor, mais tu ne sais rien, oui? (T/ ) 01:48, 17 February 2007 (CST) :::Je m'excuse. Je se changerai. Je pense que tu parles bien, et l'Internet est un ressource de etude fantastique. Nous parlons en francais ensemble, n'est-ce pas ? Un petit advertissement: quand tu as dit "tu ne sais rien. oui," certains peuvent jurer que comme un insulte. - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 02:09, 17 February 2007 (CST) ::::En Anglais, "well, you never know, eh?" est le phrase...je ne sais pas qu'il est en Francais. Je regrette l'insulte, je vais utilizer <> ou <> pour le futur. >< (T/ ) 02:12, 17 February 2007 (CST) :::::Il ne m'insulte pas. Nous sommes tous qui apprennent. Mais, Je dois retourner a l'ecriture de l'article <>. Merci de parler avec moi. Au revoir! - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 02:37, 17 February 2007 (CST) Continuing my Eurospike description * Okay the warriors bars were almost always the same as the Build:W/A Shadow Axe * Mesmer bars were this generally. : : * They could include skills like Drain Enchantment and Signet of Humility occasionally. * Another less common mesmer bar was a Me/P with "Incoming!" and "Brace Yourself!" * Monks used standard GvG Prot Bars... : * Elites were usually Zealous Benediction or Divert Hexes. * Protective Spirit or Spirit Bond commonly replaced SoA. * Mo/A or Mo/W Bars were used as well, using Dark Escape and Return or Balanced Stance and Shield Bash. * Signet of Devotion was very common as help with energy managment. * OH! How could I forget the infuser? X_X : ::Could the Prot monk drop GoLE and Aegis, and go Mo/Me with Channeling for e-mgmt, since Aegis loses effecientcy in smaller parties? I know it synergizes well with DC, but if went Mo/Me, you could take PS or SB without the energy cost being quite so prohibitive. It would requre greater attribute splitting, but the increased energy pool could be beneficial to some players. - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 01:47, 17 February 2007 (CST) Eurospike was much more commonly a GvG build actually--Llednar 13:15, 17 February 2007 (CST) :I'd seen it run there, usually with a Mending Touch Cripshot or Burning Arrow, and flagrunner, usually the pretty standard E/Mo. Wasn't sure about posting just one build for two very different arenas though, maybe now that it's up, I'll work an 8vs8 line-up in there. - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 13:20, 17 February 2007 (CST) :And why Divert? Expel..! --Silk Weaker 13:17, 17 February 2007 (CST) Build:A/Mo Hidden Spider You recently reverted a merge of this build and the A/Mo Black Widow despite a quorum of people in favor of a merge? Explanation? Defiant Elements 23:49, 18 February 2007 (CST) :Hey, got your message. I didn't revert the merge. Skuld reverted Van Wark's merge on the Build:A/Mo Black Widow page. Since the merger was RV'd, I removed the delete tag from the Hidden Caltrops build, seeing as the reason for deletion was that it had been merge, and that merge had been reverted. See the History pages of both builds (I provided links to both builds above). - [[User:Krowman|Jesuis'Krowman']] 01:50, 19 February 2007 (CST) ::Well I feel somewhat silly for missing that. Thanks. Defiant Elements 12:33, 19 February 2007 (CST) Response to your vote In casr you missed it. I usually check my contributions afterwards, but some people are not that addicted to Wiki I guess. :) "The problem with that bitter chill tactic is that it relies on spell spamming. Which is dangerous when you have an army. The point of the Soa-Ps-Virulence combo is that you can do the first step away from aggro, cast the second on something, which moves you close to cast it if you're not in range, hit virulence and get away, while your minions run up and the degen starts eating them up. 15 seconds later, if you have to repeat the combo, the battle will already be underway and you can sneak up, cast PS and virulence, back out again. Bitter chill spamming would leave you vulnerable for an extended period of time (not to mention it distracts you from healing yourself/minions and raising more - compare it to the "fire and forget" tactic of virulence). And about healing, I only didn't put monk healing spells to leave the build more flexible, some people might enjoy using a Dervish secondary, or even Paragon (signet of synergy, for instance. So please "pretend" it has a couple of healing spells of your choice. I didn't put them to leave it open, it's not that I don't heartily recommend using taste of death and res slots for something more useful/reliable :) Ps: As for death nova, it is certainly a possibility, but realize that poison will be redundant with virulence, while the long bleeding (25 secs and AoE) complements virulence perfectly to get -10 degen. Also death nova is more of a passive skill, since you can't choose when it goes off (same goes for the jagged horrors - you don't know for sure when you'll be able to count on them - what if they attack some lonely warrior while there's a cluster of casters you want to hit? They might not be up when you want them to, etc.). Lastly, I find targeting minions with nova a real pain in the butt , so I usually leave it to heroes to use it. :) NightAngel 21:48, 21 February 2007 (CST)" And Krowman, for heaven's sakes, Soul Reaping is a lot of energy, unless you're staring at Kanaxai's ugly mutt in his chamber, after pulling away all the sapping nightmares. :) NightAngel 06:35, 22 February 2007 (CST) :I don't get it. My comment stated that I didn't find energy to be a problem. What are you arguing? The other skills I mentioned are pretty standard MM-fare. Disease can be an annoying condition to spread,as it can get back to your own teammates (though this isn't much of a problem in PvE). Your "Optional heals" do not exist in the build, as your skill bar is full, and there are no optional slots. The Death Nova seems unresearched; MMs are not supposed to be spike builds, so it is not important that you can't detonate it at will. (Actually, use Taste of Death or Putrid Flesh and you can). I think that you might be thinking of a minion bomber, as there is a subtle difference. If you do not like a skill or tactic, that does not make it bad. Some people would rather rack up huge damage counts against foes than interrupt and disable them, yet shutdown is a very effective tactic. If you want to elaborate on your comment, feel free. - Krowman 00:59, 23 February 2007 (CST) ::Well, just suggesting using Offering of Blood seems to indicate otherwise about energy, and it's not the first time you say that necros have energy issues. I can't imagine Oob ever be a consideration in any PvE area of the game for a Necro (btw, this refers to your vote on the Prophecies Order build). On the virulence MM, the bar is full, but I clearly suggest replacing taste of death and the res signet. Actually, I just replaced them with optionals. I never liked taste of death anyway, and I think using resurrection signet is a waste of a slot most of the time in PvE. And the rest of your answer just makes no sense to me, so I don't know how to elaborate - interrupts? shutdowns? minion bombing?. What your comments lead me to believe is that you'd prefer if the build was the exact same MM build everyone uses, changing the elite to Virulence. That's not really what I had in mind :) But I should be used to that mode of thinking by now. Never mind, dude, never mind.... NightAngel 06:34, 23 February 2007 (CST) :::Different =/= good. People run certain builds with so much frequency because they are effective. Like I said above, you disliking something (i.e. bringing a rez, Taste of Death, etc.) does not make it bad strategy. And yeah, you do need a rez in PvE. On a side note, you are taking a comment I left on one build and are applying it to another; that's nonsense. - Krowman (talk • ) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (CST) Build:D/A Lyssa's Fury I added in a Dash to catch up to enemys so you still voting unfavoured? Eloc jcg 16:08, 23 February 2007 (CST) :I'll give it another try for you. Thank you for (eventually) incorporating the suggestion. - Krowman (talk • ) 19:24, 23 February 2007 (CST) Build:N/A Toxic Necro Changed it around again, if you would please look at it.--Nog64Talk 18:00, 25 February 2007 (CST) Sig image FYI: Your sig currently contains an image which is too tall. Per GW:SIGN, images shown in signatures should not be bigger than 50 pixels wide x 19 pixels tall. --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:08, 26 February 2007 (CST) :I like the mugs better. This makes think it's like, you lenten sig or something.--Nog64Talk 16:48, 26 February 2007 (CST) ::Actually, the mugs were in violation too as there were two images. The way the policy is currently written at GW:SIGN#Images is: "The users signature may include one small icon. The icon's image file should not be larger than 50 pixels wide x 19 pixels tall." --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:55, 26 February 2007 (CST) :::Sorry about this. I have a bit about '19px' attached to the end of my sig image. I thought this made it a 19x19 image. I don't otherwise know how to correct this, and I don't see any information about it at the GWiki 'Learn the Wiki code' page or the Wikimedia original. *embarassed* Could you take care of it for me? I'll compare this new sig with the old one to understand the changes made. Thanks in advance. - Krowman (talk • ) 21:33, 26 February 2007 (CST) ::::Nevermind. Took care of it myself. Just a bit of tinkering. - Krowman (talk • ) 14:12, 27 February 2007 (CST) Amnesty? --[[User:Sigm@|'SigmA']] 14:14, 27 February 2007 (CST) :Yup. - Krowman (talk • ) 14:19, 27 February 2007 (CST) Build:R/Mo Boy Scout Hello! Due to the fact this build is being used in a lot of the top 100 GvG matches, GvG tags have been applied. Because this is GvG now, I have adjusted the runes to one major and two minors for higher HP. If you like to revote, I invite you to do so! If not, that is okay too. Isis In De Nile 18:51, 28 February 2007 (CST) :Done and done. Thanks for the update and the heads-up. - Krowman (talk • ) 01:57, 11 March 2007 (CST) Yo. Can you log on in-game? I'd like to talk with you... privately :) -Auron 02:15, 16 March 2007 (CDT) :Or on MSN or AIM or something. But it is kinda urgent. -Auron 02:21, 16 March 2007 (CDT) ::Stuph_3@hotmail.com is my MSN. -Auron 02:31, 16 March 2007 (CDT) Pictures How do you upload pictures from your computer to your user page?--Banditda 18:32, 16 March 2007 (CDT) :There is a menu on the left-hand side of the screen. ONe of the options is "Upload image." Click, follow the instructions, you're done. Maybe see GW:IMAGE first. - Krowman (talk • ) 01:13, 17 March 2007 (CDT) Builds Policy I cannot find a "Builds Policy" please refer me to a link if you want me to do anything or tell me.Jagre 21:57, 18 March 2007 (CDT) (reference to " N/W: Jaguar Sword melee-mancer" build) :Guildwiki:Style and formatting/Builds, Guildwiki:Build vetting procedure. - Krowman (talk • ) 21:59, 18 March 2007 (CDT) I R Buildwiki For proof of my above statement, see http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/User:Defiant_Elements#Welcome_to_BuildWiki. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) :No offense, but you're missing the point. Entirely. We're nuking the existing section so that we can a) get rid of all the laughable, ridiculous builds up there, and b) retain the good ones and start anew. I've got to ask why you decided to save every single build on the wiki. Just about all the Unfavored builds are crap. A number of the vetted ones are pretty bad too. You should concentrate on saving the good builds, or even the ones you question but are more-or-less accepted by the community, instead of everything; the good with all the bad. By doing this you're undermining all the good things that NOB/PNB hopes to accomplish, while simultaneously nulifying all the good things about the current system (discussion & debate on build development, community collaboration, etc.) Other than as a pre-nuke historical reference, I don't at all see the good in what you're doing. - Krowman (talk • ) 01:49, 20 March 2007 (CDT) ::I will still probably keep records of all the builds, but my final product on my user page will only have the good stuff. As to BuildWiki, well, that was a joke. Anyways, I am not going to hurt GW:NOB or GW:PNB by having these builds on MY user page for MY reference. When the build namespace is recreated, I will carefully select whether any of the builds I have saved (which should be quite a few) are worth reentering into the system and I will do my best to ensure that only good builds are selected. I also won't flood the new namespace by reentering all of these builds. To be honest, as you call it, this really is just a pre-nuke historical reference. If I want to have it, and I want to do the work, I don't see why I shouldn't. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) :::Please don't think that I desire to act in a manner that effects the new build-space detrimentally. The new build-space as per NOB/PNB will be my absolute top priority (assuming my stress level which is slowly rising doesn't cause me to burn out first). I am as dedicated as anyone else to creating a working build space. Sorry that my little joke about BuildWiki gave you the wrong impression. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) ::::Like I said above and on your talk page, it's your whole course of action that I have problems with. At this point, you are not helping with the tramsition to a new Buildspace at all. You are desperately (defiantly? ;-0) hanging on to the old, failed one. You are saving everything. The whole point of the transition is to get rid of everything, and rebuild the Buildspace without all the crap that has fallen through the cracks. You're clinging to the crap. Seriosuly, we need to cut some dead weight, and you're doing exactly the opposite. There is no question that the Buildspace needs to be improved, though I have spoken out a number of times against removing it from the wiki. I believe that it needs to be improved, not deleted. It cannot stay the same and provide a good resource for players simultaneously, however. The culling you mentioned has to start soon, or the stuff you have clung to has to be moved to an off-site 'Buildwiki.' Otherwise, this is exactly more of the same BS. - Krowman (talk • ) 03:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT) :::::I still think you don't understand why I wanted that record. W/E. I moved it off-site so and have been affixing delete tags to those links. I will wait for the new build-space and help as much as I can. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) ::::::Right on, I look forward to working with you. - Krowman (talk • ) 03:07, 20 March 2007 (CDT) :::::::Done. Everything has been moved into a virtual drive for my own personal storage and reference and I am starting a fresh slate. Deletion tags added to all pages. God willing, we can make the build space work. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) ::::::::God, Buddah, or the Great Pumpkin. I'm sure things will work out, no need to get your britches in a twist. It will be whatever we make of it, and I see that as a good thing. - Krowman (talk • ) 03:17, 20 March 2007 (CDT) :::::::::Hmmm... maybe we should be praying to the Great Dwarf, no? ;) [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) User:Xeones Hey, he keeps removing the ban tag among other things. Can you help me make sure I don't miss anything in case he tries to remove it for a third time? [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 23:19, 27 March 2007 (CDT) :Nvm... Barek banned him. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 23:20, 27 March 2007 (CDT) ::Gah, everybody's faster than me today. I was just about to open a big can of glomp on his butt too..... - Krowman (talk • ) 23:31, 27 March 2007 (CDT) [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 01:08, 28 March 2007 (CDT) On the other hand it could just be because I watch Recent changes obsessively ;). That's what I have been doing for the last couple of hours actually. When I say I have no life or that I spend 24/7 on GuildWiki, I mean it. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 01:09, 28 March 2007 (CDT) User:Defiant Elements/Build Collaboration I realize you are primarily engaged in getting the new buildspace working, but, in case you're still interested in looking at original builds, check this out. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 23:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT) IW Sorry Krowman, I was just getting annoyed that each time i added something of value to a page, 5 minuites later, it gets deleted. Suggestions about... this? ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'InfestedHydralisk']] 19px 11:49, 2 April 2007 (CDT) Responding as requested What do you have in mind? —Tanaric 19:41, 2 April 2007 (CDT) :What do you propose to do about the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license? It explicity states that we must give a User credit for his or her contributions to the wiki. (Section 4d) Deleting the entire Builds name space is not encompassed under Section 6's stipulations, so how do plan to properly attribute a user's contributions to him or her? If we cannot attribute users' work to them, we will be in direct violation of the A-NC-SA. - Krowman (talk • ) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (CDT) ::That's a great point. We can delete builds without license issues, as we're completely removing the content. The only potential license violation is when a user copies the current text of a build to their namespace without attributing it. However, that license violation is by the user, not by the GuildWiki itself. To avoid copyvio situations, a user should attribute any text they copy properly, by at least mentioning all contributors in a section at the bottom of the build. ::Legally speaking, that's the easiest stance for me to take. I'd like to avoid putting the onus of copyright on our users in this case, but I don't have much of a choice since copying builds into userspace isn't an "official" policy. However, if you can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. —Tanaric 20:00, 2 April 2007 (CDT) :::With them copy-pasting existing builds to their user space, they will have violated the license as you said, but their userspace isn't an independent entity removed from gwiki. We should probably put up a note or banner somewhere on the wiki, if not in many places, to warn/advise users to properly attribute the work that they are copy-pasting. To 'save our own butts' and to operate within the terms of the license, though, someone, or a group of people, will have to go through all these "user buildspaces" and enforce proper attribution. This is an unsavory option if only because of the sheer amount of work it would entail. :::Since it looks like the GW:NOB policy will likely be the one the buildspace reverts to, wouldn't it be easier to freeze the builds section as is, and to directly delete the builds we will be getting rid from there? The ones we keep will have their history preserved, therefore meeting the attribution criteria, and the ones we don't keep will be deleted and completely removed from the wiki. This would also mean less work when dealing with the builds in userspaces. Many users will abandon their own buildspace projects if the good builds on the wiki are preserved, or at the very least will only holding onto the builds we choose to delete. The documentation of Archived builds would be easier this way too. :::I recognize that there are more bad builds than good ones here. However, if we delete a build, and post it later (once a policy is decided on), there would be a potential copyright infringement there. If we delete someone's contributions, and then re-use them again later on, we could have problems. I don't know that anyone has, but if they have documented (through a screen capture or any other means) that they made a contribution, we deleted it, then reused it later, we would definitely be in the wrong. It's unlikely, but why take the chance? - Krowman (talk • ) 20:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT) ::::Freezing the section would remove the point. If we freeze the section, the style and formatting article for builds is essentially locked in place, because nobody will edit it based upon the amount of work that would be required to make the old builds fit the new style -- especially if that style is significantly different (say, no skill bars?). Similarly, any new builds policy suggestions are bound to the existing concept of what a build article is. This removes the viability of "guides, not builds" suggestions, or anything else that radically different than what we have. ::::I will add text to builds wipe describing that users are responsible for maintaining article contribution history. Allow me to state this bluntly: I would rather forbid copying builds to userspace than freeze the builds section. ::::Also, don't forget that we can revert all deletions, so the potential problems with this aren't too big of a deal. If an individual contributor discovers that his build is being used in an unattributed fashion, we can very easily check the contribution history. I don't mean to imply that I'll turn a blind eye to userspace copyvios -- I won't, and we need to attack this problem right now -- but no formal copyvio gestapo is needed beyond this. We can deal with reports of copyright violation on a case-by-case basis as they come up. ::::—Tanaric 20:43, 2 April 2007 (CDT) :::::Ah, ok, I totally overlooked the S & F point. I didn't realize the way builds were presented was such a problem; I thought the major issue was content. The guides-over-builds idea is a fine one, though I personally think it will experience the same content-related issues as builds do. For the user buildspaces, how do you plan on enforcing proper attribution? - Krowman (talk • ) 20:53, 2 April 2007 (CDT) ::::::I've found that S&F is intrinsically linked to what content is generated. If S&F requires a summary section, we'll get a summary. If it doesn't, people will just post random, unreadable crap. :) ::::::As for user buildspaces, I (and hopefully other admins) will spotcheck copied builds to make sure the users are including historical information. This will likely dissuade build copying, which is a shame, since it was a decent solution to the wipes issue. That said, later on, anybody who needs to resurrect a build can always ask an admin to temporarily undelete, so this isn't a huge risk. Somebody could always just grab a list of all the build names they care about instead of the builds themselves. ::::::—Tanaric 13:34, 3 April 2007 (CDT) Hehe AoE damage, whats that? Everyone knows that flare is real pwnage. Combined with minions, you are unstoppable! Try it, and you'll see what I mean XD. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 21:46, 2 April 2007 (CDT) :AoE = Area of Effect, a skill such as Meteor Shower is an AoE skill ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'InfestedHydralisk']] 19px 13:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)